5 ms·

A study of futurism I read made the insightful observation that things which explode in popularity don't just do things differently -- they let you do new thing

by ethbr0 3y ago

A study of futurism I read made the insightful observation that things which explode in popularity don't just do things differently -- they let you do new things. Apple II - graphical OS iPod - music in your pocket iPhone - smartphone with cellular data iPad - large screen low cost iWatch - phone functionality on wrist These are all different in kind, not different in amount products. What does AR allow you to do, that you can't already do on a screen? It's different... but different in amount. It's a better screen. That might be enough to ship units, but it's not enough to explode in popularity. Hell, even mystical eyeglass AR that was actually just a pair of eyeglasses would struggle. "Why don't I just do the same thing on my screen?" or "But I'm already constantly connected when I'm mobile."

pdabbadabba 3y ago
If "phone functionality on wrist" counts as a "different in kind" product, why on earth wouldn't "smartphone functionality without looking down at a smartphone, watch, or other device" qualify? For that matter, if "smartphone with cellular data" counts, why not "smart glasses with cellular data and apps"? As you can tell, I'm a skeptic of this difference in kind v. difference in quantity construct.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  wrist : insideOfPocket is more different than wrist : eyes Or, to put it another way, how many people do you know who complain about the difficulty in looking at their wrist or cell phone? That's the count of people for whom AR glasses would be different in kind.
  - anonymouse008 3y ago
    > Or, to put it another way, how many people do you know who complain about the difficulty in looking at their wrist or cell phone? Everyone who tries to speak a text message with Siri. Apple should have been brave and not reshaped messages - that screen is not meant to consume text messages at any length - they should have changed the communication to match the context.
    - greedo 3y ago
      I use the voice to text feature of the Watch's Messages app daily. It has worked flawlessly since I bought the Watch.
      - anonymouse008 3y ago
        I mean the fatigue and awkwardness of holding a wrist up to speak to it. Think of twiddling your thumbs but productively for phones (how natural)… But yes, voice to text is a great solution to their problem - there’s just a lot left on the table
ska 3y ago
I think that is shortsighted. If you could realize a futurists dream of AR, i.e. smooth overly interacting properly with anything in your view, with context aware detail etc, it would pretty clearly be a game changer (I think). On the other hand, existing AR, like existing VR, just doesn't deliver on that promise, not even approximately. With current tech, it's more an issue that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. That can change when either (or both) side of the equation changes.
TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
I don't think any of those are true. The Apple II OS wasn't graphical. The hardware had very simple colour, which made it stand out. Mac was graphical, but it was a productised/commodified version of someone else's R&D. Nokia's Communicator range had cellular data long before the iPhone was a thing. What iPhone did differently was - again - productise and commodify existing technologies to create something that was more than the sum of its components. Touch was the biggest part of that, but the App Store really killed the competition. iPads were never particularly low cost. There were numerous tablets before the iPad. The iPad difference was - again - touch. And the App Store. iWatch wrist phone may be true, but I suspect it's not the main use case. (I've yet to see anyone talking into an iWatch. I'm sure it happens, but not nearly as often as phone conversations do.) The common factor - apart from iWatch - is taking/blending existing tech and packaging it into an accessible non-nerdy form with obvious and instant mass market appeal. And creating a vibrant developer ecosystem around it. And adding design stylings that make the product cool. That's exactly what this display project doesn't have. Even if it does its job well it has no obvious instant applications. And clamping a rubber facehugger to your head is the opposite of cool. It may have mass appeal after version 4 or 5 when it's closer to the ideal of stylish glasses with a supporting ecosystem. But I suspect version 1 is going to have a very limited market.

by ethbr0 3y ago

pdabbadabba 3y ago

If "phone functionality on wrist" counts as a "different in kind" product, why on earth wouldn't "smartphone functionality without looking down at a smartphone, watch, or other device" qualify? For that matter, if "smartphone with cellular data" counts, why not "smart glasses with cellular data and apps"? As you can tell, I'm a skeptic of this difference in kind v. difference in quantity construct.

ethbr0 3y ago
wrist : insideOfPocket is more different than wrist : eyes Or, to put it another way, how many people do you know who complain about the difficulty in looking at their wrist or cell phone? That's the count of people for whom AR glasses would be different in kind.
- anonymouse008 3y ago
  > Or, to put it another way, how many people do you know who complain about the difficulty in looking at their wrist or cell phone? Everyone who tries to speak a text message with Siri. Apple should have been brave and not reshaped messages - that screen is not meant to consume text messages at any length - they should have changed the communication to match the context.
  - greedo 3y ago
    I use the voice to text feature of the Watch's Messages app daily. It has worked flawlessly since I bought the Watch.
    - anonymouse008 3y ago
      I mean the fatigue and awkwardness of holding a wrist up to speak to it. Think of twiddling your thumbs but productively for phones (how natural)… But yes, voice to text is a great solution to their problem - there’s just a lot left on the table

ska 3y ago

I think that is shortsighted. If you could realize a futurists dream of AR, i.e. smooth overly interacting properly with anything in your view, with context aware detail etc, it would pretty clearly be a game changer (I think). On the other hand, existing AR, like existing VR, just doesn't deliver on that promise, not even approximately. With current tech, it's more an issue that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. That can change when either (or both) side of the equation changes.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago

I don't think any of those are true. The Apple II OS wasn't graphical. The hardware had very simple colour, which made it stand out. Mac was graphical, but it was a productised/commodified version of someone else's R&D. Nokia's Communicator range had cellular data long before the iPhone was a thing. What iPhone did differently was - again - productise and commodify existing technologies to create something that was more than the sum of its components. Touch was the biggest part of that, but the App Store really killed the competition. iPads were never particularly low cost. There were numerous tablets before the iPad. The iPad difference was - again - touch. And the App Store. iWatch wrist phone may be true, but I suspect it's not the main use case. (I've yet to see anyone talking into an iWatch. I'm sure it happens, but not nearly as often as phone conversations do.) The common factor - apart from iWatch - is taking/blending existing tech and packaging it into an accessible non-nerdy form with obvious and instant mass market appeal. And creating a vibrant developer ecosystem around it. And adding design stylings that make the product cool. That's exactly what this display project doesn't have. Even if it does its job well it has no obvious instant applications. And clamping a rubber facehugger to your head is the opposite of cool. It may have mass appeal after version 4 or 5 when it's closer to the ideal of stylish glasses with a supporting ecosystem. But I suspect version 1 is going to have a very limited market.